S.Thamilarasi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Orders Reserved on :
12..09..2023 Orders Pronounced on :
09..10..2023 Coram THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Writ Petition No.23570 of 2022 and W.M.P.Nos.22531 and 22532 of 2022 S.Thamilarasi ..... Petitioner -Versus1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner / Director, School Education Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600006.
..... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representations dated 11.08.2022 and 29.08.2022, award 3 bonus marks and
permit the petitioner to participate in the forthwith certificate verification for the post of P.G. Assistant (Commerce) as per the Notification of the 3rd respondent dated 09.09.2021 in Advertisement No.01/2021 and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as P.G. Assistant (Commerce) in the School Education Department.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Jayaseelan For Respondent (s) : Mr.P.Baladhandayutham, Special Government Pleader for RR1 & 2 Mr.R.Neelakandan, Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.C.Kathiravan, Standing Counsel for R3
ORDER
This writ petition has been seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representations dated 11.08.2022 and 29.08.2022 made by the petitioner seeking to award 3 bonus marks and permit the petitioner to participate in the forthwith certificate verification for the post of P.G. Assistant (Commerce) and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as P.G. Assistant (Commerce) in the School Education Department.
2. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Post Graduate Assistant (Commerce). She belongs to Most Backward Class (MBC) community. She is
fully qualified to apply for the post and she applied for the post pursuant to the Notification / Advertisement No.01/2021 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent for direct recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Assistants / Physical Education Directors Grade-I/Computer Instructor Grade-I in School Education Department and other Departments for the year 2020-2021. There is no dispute in it. There is also no dispute regarding the Scheme of Examination. Her roll/register number is 21PG1206017381. She had taken the written examination on 13.02.2022 and secured 72 out of 147 marks. The grievance of the petitioner is that the answers which she had opted for Question Nos.47, 85 & 99 are correct and if she had been given marks for those questions, she would have been considered for certificate verification and selected for appointment.
3. Since the petitioner failed to secure the cut-off marks pertaining to MBC category, she was not selected. It is the stand of the petitioner that key answers set in respect of Question Nos.47, 85 & 99 are demonstrably and palpably wrong and that therefore, she should have been awarded marks for those questions also.
4. The respondent board filed its counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and inter alia contending that objections were received from the candidates in respect of certain questions that key answers were
wrong and an expert body was constituted and based on the opinion of the expert body certain key answers were revised and marks were given to the candidates. Therefore, now, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the same objection before this court as second round.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took this court through the materials submitted during the course of argument in the form of typed set of papers in support of his submission that the answers opted by the petitioner are correct and the key answers are wrong and the petitioner is entitled to get marks for Question Nos.47, 85 & 99.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the learned standing counsel on record for the TRB taking this court through the counter affidavit submitted that questions setters were experts in their respective fields and the objections were referred to a expert body, who were also experts in the field. The expert body after examining the objections submitted its report that answers to certain questions were wrong. When there was an effective mechanism evolved by the TRB to raise objection to key answer, if any, and the objections raised by the candidates were already considered by the expert body, the petitioner cannot raise the same claim once again before this court. Further, according to him, the books relied on by the
petitioner to prove the errors were not the materials authorised by the State.
7. This court had called upon the TRB to produce the experts opinion justifying the key answers. Report of the expert body was accordingly produced.
8. This court has considered the rival submissions carefully and gone through the materials on record including the report of the expert body.
9. In the case of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [(1983) 4 SCC 309], the Supreme Court has held that it should be presumed that the key answers set by the paper setters are correct, unless it is demonstrably wrong.
10. It is also the settled law that this court cannot conduct itself like an expert and go into the correctness of the key answers set to the questions by the paper setters and affirmed or revised by the expert body based certain concrete materials.
11. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. [(2018) 2 SCC 357), the Supreme Court has held as under:- "30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;
30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing
an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate."
12. In the case of U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, [(2018) 7 SCC 254], while reitering the law on the subject, the Supreme Court the has held as under:-
12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is
wrong. The constitutional courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] , the Court recommended a system of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions."
.....
.....
.....
.....
14. In the present case, we find that all the three questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain textbooks. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts."
13. In the case of High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarthi Mukherjee and others [(2019) 2 Scale 708], the Supreme Court has has held as under:- "19. The question however arises whether even
if there is no legal right to demand revaluation as of right could there arise circumstances which leaves the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may arise where even though there is no provision for revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be confined to a case where there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for revaluation in a situation where a candidate despite having given correct answer and about which there cannot be even slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any mark."
14. Very recently in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan [(2021) 2 SCC 309], after considering a catena of decisions on the scope of judicial review with regard to reevaluation of the answer sheets, the Supreme Court observed and held that the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it had no expertise in the matter
and the academic matters are best left to academics.
15. The candidates who took the written examination were given an opportunity to submit their objections, if any, to the tentative key answers published by the TRB through online objection tracker. Based on the objections received from the candidates, an expert body was constituted to go into the correctness of the key answers. According to the TRB, valuation of the answer sheets was done by them based on the opinion of the expert body.
16. This court is not an expert in the academic matter. The scope of the judicial review against the experts' opinion is extremely limited and unless it is shown that the mistake is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent, the view of the examining body cannot be interfered with. Taking into account the guiding principles on the power of judicial review, this court does not want to assume the role of an academic expert. The emphasis in the case of Rahul Singh was that not only the onus is on the candidates to demonstrate that the key answer was incorrect, but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process of reasoning is required to show that the key answer was wrong.
17. Though it has been asserted by the petitioner that the answers which
he had opted for Question Nos.47, 85 & 99 are only correct, those questions have been deleted from valuation and the total mark was reduced from 150 to 147 and as such question of re-examining the correctness of the key answer would not arise. Therefore, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition and it deserves to be dismissed.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMPs are closed.
09..10..2023 Index : yes / no : yes / no kmk To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner / Director, School Education Department, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
3.The Member Secretary, Teachers Recruitment Board, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai 600006.
N.SATHISH KUMAR.J.,
kmk Pre delivery Order in 09..10..2023